Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202201762)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201762

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

17 June 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 2000. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom mid terraced house. The resident is elderly and suffers from depression, angina, COPD, and reported that his mental health suffered because of the ASB.
  2. Between 3 June 2021 and 27 August 2021, the resident called the landlord 4 times to report noise nuisance from his neighbour. He reported that the neighbour was banging on his wall. He said the noise was affecting his sleep and as he was disabled it was affecting his health. He reported no previous problems with the neighbour and wanted the landlord to speak to the neighbour. He reported extreme anxiety and asked the landlord for assistance.
  3. On 27 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and reported that his neighbours were causing him extreme distress affecting his health, he reported that he had an angina attack the previous month and asked for the landlord to help him with the issue. On 2 September 2021, the landlord opened an ASB case and advised the resident to keep a diary of dates and times of noise nuisance.   
  4. On 23 August 2022, the Ombudsman raised a complaint with the landlord on behalf of the resident. The resident complained that he had experienced deliberate noise nuisance from his neighbour for 18 months which affected his health. He was unhappy with the landlords handling of the reports of ASB. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to respond to the ASB issue in line with its ASB policy and for the landlord to move his neighbour to a different property.
  5. On 7 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint. It did not uphold the complaint. It provided a timeline of its handling of ASB since the case was open in September 2021, it noted that it had not received any evidence that confirmed that the noise was deliberate. It said that the case had recently progressed to mediation. It provided information on its allocations policy and said it would not consider a management move or internal transfer on the basis of the ASB case.
  6. On 14 November 2023, the Ombudsman escalated the complaint on behalf of the resident. The resident complained that he had experienced noise nuisance for 2.5 years which was affecting his mental health. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to conduct a thorough investigation and take appropriate action in line with its ASB policy.
  7. On 4 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It reviewed its ASB handling and found no service failures. It acknowledged that the resident had reservations about the outcome of the ASB investigations. As a resolution, it said it would reopen the ASB case for review. It acknowledged that the resident had not been able to record noise on his phone. It agreed to explore further options to assist the resident with obtaining noise recordings to compliment his diary entries. It said it would discuss with both parties to see if a noise transfer test could be completed and it would revisit mediation.

Events after the internal complaints process

  1. On 7 December 2023, the landlord re-opened the ASB case. It referred the case to an external mediation company. It conducted a further ASB investigation and on 19 April 2024, the landlord closed the case.
  2. When the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman, he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. He said that the landlord did not do anything for the first 3 months after he reported the noise. After that the landlord kept him informed of various visits with his neighbour but there was no improvement. The resident said he requested noise monitoring equipment but he had to wait 12 months for this. He said the noise transfer test was a ‘farce’. He believed that his neighbour was aware when the noise monitoring equipment was installed and did not make noise while it was there. He disagreed with the landlord’s position that the noise was normal household noise and said that it was deliberate and caused him stress and anxiety.
  3. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to take appropriate action against his neighbour in line with its ASB policy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation  

  1. The evidence shows that the first report of ASB was on 3 June 2021 and the landlord closed the ASB case on 17 January 2023. The landlord reopened the ASB case on 15 November 2023, conducted a further investigation and closed the ASB case on 19 April 2024. For completeness. the Ombudsman has considered all evidence from 3 June 2021 until 19 April 2024.
  2. The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the ASB case had an impact on his health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration can be given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the matters reported amounted to ASB but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Progressing all cases through the relevant aspects of its ASB procedure will enable a landlord to make an informed decision as to whether a reported issue amounts to ASB and if so, what action it should take in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy includes noise nuisance such as shouting, banging/slamming doors, loud music etc as an example of ASB behaviour. The policy says that it will investigate reports of ASB. It will interview the complainant and may interview alleged perpetrators and others to gather further evidence. It will seek to resolve matters at the earliest stage. It may use non-legal interventions such as asking residents to sign acceptable behaviour contracts, where residents agree to behave in an acceptable manner, if appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it will respond to reports of ASB within 5 working days. In most cases the matter would be assigned to the Community Co-ordinator (CC) for that area. The CC would then take full details of the issues, take details of any other witnesses to the incidents, and complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix. They would then outline what next steps can be taken to try and achieve the resident’s outcome and resolve the ASB. If the CC found that there was a case to take forward an action plan would be completed.
  4. After receiving the initial report of ASB, the landlord’s records show that the CC attempted to call the resident 5 times between 4 June 2021 and 26 August 2021 but noted that there was no voicemail facility. Throughout this same period the resident continued to call the landlord and reported noise nuisance a further 3 times. This was a communication failure that led to no progress for the first 3 months. The CC should have considered other methods of communication to arrange the initial meeting with the resident. It could have considered email, text message, letter, or even a visit, especially considering the extent of the impact that the resident had reported. Its failure to take all reasonable steps to contact the resident impacted its ability to resolve matters at an early stage in line with its policy.
  5. After the landlord opened an ASB case, the resident kept noise nuisance diary sheets between 2 September 2021 and 27 September 2021. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it visited the resident in October 2021. The Ombudsman has not received any evidence of this meeting. There is no record of an agreed action plan with the resident. The landlord should have carried out a vulnerability risk assessment but there is no evidence that this was carried out. This was inappropriate, especially considering the residents vulnerabilities and the level of impact reported.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it spoke with the resident in April 2022 who confirmed that there had been no incidents for quite some time and no recent noise. Based on the records provided to the Ombudsman, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s findings at stage 1. Its ASB records show an unsuccessful call to the resident on 2 April 2022 and a note stating “Note of contact with complainant” on 17 April 2022. However, there is no record of what was reported by the resident at this contact.
  7. There was no contemporaneous evidence that the resident said that there had been no incidents. In fact, the resident kept diary sheets which noted several noise nuisance incidents throughout March and April 2022.  
  8. Based on the evidence, the landlord first contacted the resident’s neighbour in respect of the alleged ASB on 20 March 2022 when it made a phone call but there was no answer. On 17 April 2022, its records show another attempted call. On 21 July 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident’s neighbour to advise that it had received reports of ASB and arranged an appointment to discuss the allegations. This is the first record that the landlord notified the resident’s neighbour about the allegations of ASB. This was over 1 year since the first report of noise nuisance. This was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of urgency or empathy to the resident’s circumstances.
  9. On 31 August 2022, the resident signed an agreement for mediation. On 27 September 2022, the resident reported further noise nuisance and asked the landlord for an update on mediation. When the landlord closed the ASB case on 17 January 2023, it wrote to the resident and said it “referred to mediation”. The evidence indicates that the mediation did not take place but the landlord’s records are unclear as to why. This was an opportunity to encourage positive engagement between the resident and neighbour and it was not appropriate for the landlord to close the ASB case before the outcome of any mediation outcome was fully clear.
  10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord noted that the resident did not have access to noise app recordings. When it first wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 21 July 2022, it said it could install noise monitoring equipment. When it closed its ASB case on 17 January 2023, it said that it could not progress the case without sufficient evidence that the noise was deliberate. The landlord should have considered the use of noise monitoring equipment before closing the ASB case. This caused frustration to the resident who continued to report deliberate noise nuisance.  
  11. The landlord carried out a sound transfer test on 29 November 2022 and identified improvements to the kitchen drawers and cupboard doors to reduce noise transfer. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take to help reduce the noise.
  12. On 15 November 2023, the landlord reopened the ASB investigation. On 5 December 2023, it agreed an action plan with the resident. Between 7 December 2023 and 19 April 2024, the landlord completed a vulnerability assessment, supplied and reviewed noise monitoring equipment, completed mediation, offered a noise transfer test, and took legal advice on the possibility of moving the resident’s neighbour based on the evidence it had gathered. These were all positive actions for the landlord to take in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. On 19 April 2024, the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed that the noise had subsided since mediation.
  13. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of ASB. This investigation found a number of service failures in its initial ASB investigation including:
    1. 3 months to open an ASB case after the resident reported it.
    2. no evidence that it completed a vulnerability risk assessment or agreed an action plan with the resident.
    3. the first notification of ASB to the alleged perpetrator was over 1 year since the initial report.
    4. not taking reasonable steps to assist the resident in collecting noise nuisance evidence.
    5. failing to follow up with the mediation process before closing the ASB case.
  14. It is recognised that the landlord did not receive any reports of ASB between 17 January 2023, when it closed the initial ASB case, and 14 November 2023, when the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to escalate the complaint. It was evident that the landlord conducted a more thorough ASB investigation at stage 2 of the complaint process. It applied its ASB procedure effectively by agreeing an action plan, carrying out a risk assessment, providing monitoring equipment, providing mediation, and seeking legal advice. This resulted in a positive outcome for the resident. The improvement in the landlord’s approach followed the involvement of the Ombudsman.
  15. The landlord’s failures caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who reported ongoing noise nuisance from his neighbour. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it showed due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities when conducting the ASB investigation, which exacerbated the distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman has ordered compensation of £800 in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Complaint handling 

  1. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning. The Code sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right
  2. The landlord failed to identify any service failures. In both complaint responses it said that it had applied its ASB policy appropriately. This investigation identified a number of service failures (noted in paragraph 27) in its initial ASB investigation which led to a finding of maladministration.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response it agreed to reopen the ASB case to assist the resident with noise recording, to carry out a further noise transfer test, and to revisit mediation. This indicates that the landlord had identified improvements to its initial ASB investigation. So, it is unclear as to why it did not accept there was service failings. This was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord failed to accept that there were service failings and it failed to effectively use its complaints policy to put things right for the resident. The landlord should have apologised to the resident and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s complaint handling caused further distress to the resident. An order of compensation of £100 has been made below to reflect this distress in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, compensation of £900, compromising:
    1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in responding to reports of ASB
    2. £100 for distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
  3. It is ordered for the landlord to review the learning from this case and in particular its capacity to assist the capture of alleged noise nuisance where residents have additional needs, within 8 weeks of the date of this report.